RE: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

["Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

There are 2 ways to stop a war:

1) one side it utterly defeated and disaggregated
2) both sides suffered enough and agree to start thinking of the best terms for coexistence

1) is not close to happening any time soon

From this, the conclusion is that we have not suffered enough.

On the side, the IETF has its own Tao for consensus and such things.
See section 4.2 of https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/

As a WG chair, I happen to have to figure consensus out. It's a rough and very human process. It has to do with feeling 
of support from the room and the mailing list. It has also to do with insuring that all technically valid objections 
found an answer, even if the opponent is a minority.

For work that does not have a home, there's always the Int Area WG.

And for those who think we already reached 2) after only 20 years, there's always the discussion on the original 
thread, and the yada-yatt draft.

Keep safe;

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+pthubert=cisco.com () nanog org> On Behalf Of Joe
> Maimon
> Sent: vendredi 1 avril 2022 5:46
> To: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re:
> 202203261833.AYC
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks
> > that aren’t deploying IPv6 to get off the dime and stop holding the rest of
> the world hostage in the IPv4 backwater.
> > Owen
>
> You keep championing that approach, essentially unchanged for the past
> 20 years with an impressive record of partial success and much failure and I
> will fully support and applaud your efforts in doing so. I will also hope
> that it doesnt take another 20 to finally succeed, because as you point out,
> you require an extremely high level of participation before its Mission
> Accomplished.
>
> And its not unreasonable to expect that until that approach succeeds, that
> others' efforts to work on the ongoing problem receive the same support and
> encouragement.
>
> IPv6 uber-alles adherents had more than enough time to claim it was going to
> solve the problem without any need for anything else and to "request" (quite
> strongly and wrongly so in my opinion) that everyone rally their efforts
> around that.
>
> Now its time for those adherents to reciprocate.
>
> And here is a little bit of constructive criticism to the Evangelical
> approach. Essentially, you need to pivot from how their efforts can save the
> world into how their efforts can benefit themselves.
>
> You want more people to use IPv6? Make it worth their while. Lower the
> barriers the cost the risks and increase the bennies.
>
> The early adopters, the activists, those who define themselves by their
> altruism you already got.
>
> Dont be surprised when so many balk at doing things they have no particular
> defined need or interest in doing when the primary beneficiaries arent
> themselves, but the primary cost carriers are.
>
> Or we can just wait and see how the natural course of events eventually plays
> out. Still looks likely that IPv6 will eventually take over the internet, but
> it sure would be nice if IPv4 did not become completely unusable before that
> manages to occur.
>
> Joe